FOR decades, smoking was seen as the epitome of cool. Millions of addicts swore blind that nothing worked better than lighting up to magic away stress

Ridiculous! Smoking hasn't been the epitome of cool since the 1950's. For that matter I highly doubt it was EVER the 'epitome' of 'cool'.

Smoking went into full-swing after WWII, because during the war soldiers were given 5 smokes per day in their daily rations. When they came back, retailers had a couple thousand addicts on their hands and started selling and advertising full-force. Of course, immediately after any war, the boys that had just gotten home after fighting for their country were glorified, and so I personally think this is what set smoking into motion.

Before the war, in the roaring twenties, it was extremely popular for flappers to smoke as an act of individuality and a hint at feminism.

Smoking was very much an okay thing until people started dropping dead. This may or may not have increased the alleged cool factor, when the late 50s and early 60s brought the Fonz archetype, the leather sporting rouser of rabble with no regaurd to his own mortality. Really, what's cooler than laughing in the face of death? Later, when the 60s and 70s came on, the same attitude intensified as heavier drugs came into play.

It's really only been the past decade or two that smoking has been despised by the public. My dad can recall ashtrays at the end of the isles in grocery stores and theaters- imagine, a world where shopping for broccoli and lighting up went hand-in-hand.

It's really only been the past decade or two that smoking has been despised by the public. My dad can recall ashtrays at the end of the isles in grocery stores and theaters- imagine, a world where shopping for broccoli and lighting up went hand-in-hand.

Really? Gee I remember when the surgeon general's warning first appeared on a pack of cigarettes. I also seem to recall getting snickered at for smoking somewhere around that time and ever since.

_________________________
"All the truth in the world adds up to one big lie."

I have always said, if you want to smoke, smoke, but don't inflict your smoke on the unwilling public, and don't cry about your death, should it be somehow related to your smoking. If you think it tastes good or get some social enjoyment out of it, go right ahead without guilt.I myself smoke on occasion. Mostly cigars. I am not addicted. The last time I smoked anything has to have been, at least 8 months ago, and I have no strong desire to do it right now. As I do have some tasty cigars around somewhere I may take the oppertunity to have a smoke as I take a walk outside sometime, but I might not, and I don't always. But, most people who begin smoking aren't so lucky as to escape addiction, so in most cases I wouldn't suggest starting.Each person is individual, so there is no blanket statement good for all, but whatever you do, as long as you take responsibility for your actions and enjoy yourself, go right ahead. So, if you want to smoke, smoke all you want, but don't do it with a guilty thought in your head... that would be a complete waste!

Really? Gee I remember when the surgeon general's warning first appeared on a pack of cigarettes. I also seem to recall getting snickered at for smoking somewhere around that time and ever since.

Snickered at is fine, but asked to leave buildings and outdoor areas?- the amusement park in my area is entirely outdoors but still has very stricly designated smoking areas. Smoking bas been banned here, there, and now citizens are not only being urged to not smoke but to also avoid other smokers as to not be inflicted with the dreaded second-hand smoke. Given the right envirnment and the right fanatic zealots, this could become another Red Scare- though I'm sure they'll think of something more clever to call it, like the Black Scare in reference to lungs, or the Green Scare in reference to menthol. This is an extreme instance, but is all the while possible. Personally, I don't give a damn what anyone else does to their lungs and will not judge them for it. A vice is a vice. You cannot look at other addictions and blame the addict for starting it in the first place- food, chocolate, sex, et cetera. It's not my job to decide, based on a person's vices, whether they are smart, a good person, a waste of my time, and so on.

I suppose what I'm getting at is simply that the animosity towards tobacco and its patrons has indeed increased from something miniscule in the past. Smoking has not always been a social sin, and has gradually, if not exponentially become a taboo. ("Gradually" and "exponentially" seem like very different words, but in my head, when I think of the word "exponentially", I see the parabola y=x^2, which in my opinion accurately graphs the hysteria over tobacco in the past century. Plug it into your TI-84 if you don't know what I'm talking about.)

By the by, your sarcasm is not appreciated nor is it constructive here, so either take it elsewhere or just shut up.

I personally don't get it, all that fuzz around "trying to quit".And the false promises people are making to themselves "yeah, but one day..blabla". It's really a matter of WILL, and all the rest is rubbish and a waste of spit.

_________________________
He who turns the other cheek is a cowardly dog.||.TSB Page 33.||

An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest. || Benjamin Franklin ||

What I found most rediculous is that our state is jacking up the taxes on tobacco in order to support related health care-

I personally don't believe that an insurance company should cover a smoker for a disease related to it. If I had lung cancer, I would go my merry dead way and not beg money off of the insurance companies. There is a point at which where you can only shrug and say "What did you think was going to happen?" it's like car insurance for NASCAR drivers. Think about it.

What I found most rediculous is that our state is jacking up the taxes on tobacco in order to support related health care-

I personally don't believe that an insurance company should cover a smoker for a disease related to it. If I had lung cancer, I would go my merry dead way and not beg money off of the insurance companies.

Yeah. Sure you would. Let's listen in on that scenario...

"I'm afraid the the tests are positive. The mass is malignant, and unless you receive treatment immediately, you're looking at a very painful death. Now, your insurance should cover the treatment. Plus the state has a fund in place for this sort of thing, paid for by a tax on tobacco--"

"Oh, then never mind, Doctor."

"Um... what?"

"It's probably my own fault anyway. If it's all the same to you I'll just take my lumps and go die. I mean, why should anybody else pay for this?"

"But... your insurance company has agreed to pay. They have to; it's in the contract. They took on the risk of this happening when they gave you a policy. It's the nature of their business, and I assure you they're still making a profit on it overall."

"But I'm a smoker. I should have seen this coming, right? So I'm not going to beg money to try and fix it now."

"Well, yes, you should have quit smoking a long time ago, but it's not too late to take corrective action here. Also, I don't think you understand just how horrible a death you're staring down if this is left untreated. With the proper care, we could at least--"

"Oh no, I understand. It's just that I'd much rather die. You know, to make a point about the political bee I've got in my bonnet over this issue."

The fact that smoking causes stress is NOT something new. It has long been known that smoking depletes the body of vitamin C. (Vitamin C is a stress vitamin)

I'm pretty leery about their findings in the article you provided it seems they have found yet another excuse to pass out antidepressants.

Quote:

Some scientists believe drugs that boost serotonin levels would be far more effective than nicotine patches in helping smokers through the crucial three-week period after the decision to quit. Serotonin is a naturally-occurring "calming" hormone, produced by the brain at times of stress.

And:

Quote:

The answer may now lie in producing drugs that stimulate serotonin production during the vital three weeks in which it takes the chemical pathways to recover after a smoker has stopped.

Orgasm does the same thing. One could just have an orgasm a day(or more ) to keep the serotonin levels up! Beats dying of cancer hands down. And no nasty medication side effects.

Hail Satan!

_________________________
"It does take an exceptional mind and a still more exceptional integrity to remain untouched by the brain-destroying influences of the world's doctrines, the accumulated evil of the centuries-to remain human, since the human is the rational." Dr. Akston in Atlas Shrugged

It's really a matter of WILL, and all the rest is rubbish and a waste of spit.

Exactly! It is just that...will power baby and if you donít have any shut your damn trap and smoke till you fucking drop because the information is out there and that is ALL the motivation you need.

I'll chime in on that one also. Exactly. You are either a slave to cigarettes or the master of your own destiny. Which is it?

Hail Satan!

_________________________
"It does take an exceptional mind and a still more exceptional integrity to remain untouched by the brain-destroying influences of the world's doctrines, the accumulated evil of the centuries-to remain human, since the human is the rational." Dr. Akston in Atlas Shrugged

I'll chime in on that one also. Exactly. You are either a slave to cigarettes or the master of your own destiny. Which is it?

Hail Satan!

The master of my own destiny.... aaaand a lover of orgasms (loved your previous reply dragondancer!).

_________________________"What happens in the shadow, in the grey regions, also interests us Ė all that is elusive and fugitive, all that can be said in those beautiful half tones, or in whispers, in deep shade." ~ The Brothers Quay

Quite honestly.. I wouldn't want to live by the time I'd been smoking long enough to have lung cancer. By that time I myself would have figured out that life thereafter would be abstinence. Also, if I were to smoke that long and fall to addiction, I would no longer be the one in control of my life, which is again abstinence.

If I'm going to do something that harmful to myself, knowing full well the consequences, then I deserve inoperable tumors.

I have never tried ciggarettes and neither do i plan to try anytime in the near future. I have tried cigars and sheeshas and whatever else and have discovered a fondness for sheeshas. I have never questioned if its really harmful to my health because i simply do not overdo it. I find that questioning myself about such things would only serve to hinder my enjoyment over such a simple pleasure of life. Know your limits and work with it. Smoke all you want. Addiction is a disease for the weak.